NC0002305_Report_20070628

NPDES DOCUHENT SCANNING; COVER SHEET
NPDES Permit:
NC0002305
Guilford Mills WWTP
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
(fieforf
IrisT"ream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
June 28, 2007
Tlzisi document is printed or► reuse paper - igpaore any
content on faze re'rerse side

1T3 Engineering, P.C.
2401 Research Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
[phone]
Water Quality Modeling of the
Cape Fear River
Prepared for:
Guilford Mills
Kenansville, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Wu Seng Lung, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Virginia
and
W. Gilbert O'Neal, Ph.D., P.E.
President
IT3 Engineering, P.C.
June 28, 2007

Water Quality Modeling of the
Cape Fear River at Guilford Mills, NC
2/16/07
Introduction
The Guilford Mills Plant located in Kenansville, North Carolina manufactures fabrics used
primarily in automotive interiors. Dyeing and finishing operations result in the discharge of
around 1.0 mgd of wastewater. The wastewater is biologically treatment using the extended
aeration process and then chemically treated using aluminum salts, and polymers for
coagulation and precipitation of colloidal and particulates remaining after secondary
sedimentation. Che ical, or tertiary treatment, is required for compliance with a average
and maxirrluniCBO of 10 mg/L. While the discharge from the secondary clarifier generally
averages below this it, compliance with the 10 mg/L maximum limit can not be
consistently obtained without tertiary treatment.
The operating cost for chemical treatment presently exceeds $400,000 per year and is a
significant factor affecting the economic competitiveness of Guilford Mills. Low cost
imported fabrics continue to threaten the U.S. textile industry and margins are minimal.
Thus, every manufacturing cost, including those associated with environmental control,
must be minimized to maintain market viability and manufacturing jobs in North Carolina.
It is understood that water quality must not be compromised by cost reduction efforts.
However, only those measures and associated costs required for protection of the receiving
stream should be required.
The Guilford NPDES permit stipulates water quality limiting permit conditions for CBOD.
These Limits were established based on desktop models of the receiving stream. These
models were established using best professional judgment; however, they were not based on
extensive field data. Thus, in an effort to verify the need for the additional cost of compliance
using tertiary treatment, a water quality model was developed to simulate carbonaceous
biochemical demand (CBOD), nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand (NBOD), and
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the Cape Fear River following the discharge of the
Guilford Mills wastewater treatment plant. Data collected from two water quality surveys
conducted in May 2002 and September 2005 were used to support the modeling analysis.
The field program also included a time -of -travel study for the modeling area and sample
collections for water quality parameter analyses. Figure 1 shows the water quality sampling
stations.
Modeling Approach and STREAM Model
The basic principle of a water quality model is mass balance. The following physical and
biochemical processes related to BOD and DO are considered in the model: deoxygenation
of organic material from the Guilford Mills wastewater treatment plant; resupply of oxygen
from the atmosphere to the reservoir; algal photosynthesis and respiration; sediment oxygen
demand; wastewater characteristics; and water temperature, which affects all biochemical
reaction and reaeration rates.
2

r
STREAM, a steady-state, 1-D BOD and DO model for streams and rivers, was configured for
the Cape Fear River. Three water quality parameters are modeled: ultimate CBOD (CBOD„),
NBOD, and DO (Lung, 2001). The model has been widely used in wasteload allocations to
support regulatory permitting work. Recent applications of STREAM include a modeling
study of the Roanoke River for assimilative capacity calculations (Lung and Sobeck, 1999)
and Walnut Creek in Alabama.
The following processes are included in the STREAM model: removal of CBOD in the water
column, biological oxidation of CBOD and NBOD, stream reaeration, algal photosynthesis
and respiration, and sediment oxygen demand (SOD). Essentially, the model tracks the
mass balance of CBOD, NBOD, and DO along the stream. The complete model formulation
is listed in the Appendix.
Data Results and Methods
Field and laboratory data results and test methods are presented in Appendix A. -
Key Technical Considerations
The key to running the STREAM model is assigning the kinetic coefficients such as CBOD
removal and deoxygenation rates, nitrification rate, and stream reaeration rate. To achieve
full calibration of the model for the Cape Fear River, model tuning should be conducted such
that the model calculations would capture the key water quality trend(s) using the kinetic
coefficient values consistent with literature reported bounds for BOD and DO models of
streams.
3

Guilford Mills
NE Cape Fear TMDL Study
Station Map
Station dX Descriptor
1 -50 Above outflow
2 200 Complete Mix
3 8200 Pig Farm
4 --
5 15200 River Section
6 20200 Sarecta Bridge
NOTE: Reference is discharge point (X = 0)
Station 4 not used.
Measurements in Feet
N S1/S2 (marked at outflow)
S3 (Pig Farm)
S5
S6 (Under Sarecta Bridge)
Grid Lines are 1000 by 1000 meters.
Figure 1. Water Quality Sampling Stations for the Cape Fear River near Guilford, NC
In this study, the ambient stream flow above the Guilford Mills wastewater treatment plant
is small and the plant often provides a significant portion of the stream flow in the vicinity of
the discharge. A unique feature of such low -flow stream receiving point source discharges is
that the first half of the classic DO spatial profile is missing. That is, the DO sag is usually at
the wastewater outfall. The DO level recovers progressively from that point on (Lung, 2001).
The wastewater CBOD„ to CBODs ratio is extremely important in this modeling study. It is
widely known that this ratio is closely related to the characteristics of the wastewater and
4

thereby to the CBOD deoxygenation rate in the stream. As the treatment level is increased,
the deoxygenation coefficient is reduced, resulting in a higher ratio. This ratio is also needed
to convert the model calculated CBOD„ loads to CBOD5 loads for developing the allowable
permit loads for the regulatory agency. In this study, recent lab results from the Iong-term
CBOD runs of the wastewater and the receiving water samples provided data for the
modeling analysis.
Another key model parameter is the stream reaeration coefficient. In lieu of field
measurements, an empirical equation is usually used. For small streams such as the Cape
Fear River in the study area, the equation by Tsivoglou and Neal (1976) is recommended
(Lung, 2001). A comprehensive analysis by Grant (1976) indicated that the Tsivoglou
Equation is most accurate for small, shallow streams. The STREAM model offers this
equation as one of the options for the users:
Ko = 0.88US for 10 < Q < 300 cfs (3a)
Ka=1.88US for 1 < Q < 10 cfs (3b)
Where Ka is the reaeration coefficient (day-1) at 20°C, S is the stream channel bottom slope in
ft/mile, and U is averaged stream velocity in ft/sec.
Mass Transport Modeling
The first step of the modeling analysis is to track the mass transport in the receiving water
using a conservative substance. The STREAM model was first configured to simulate
specific conductivity in the Cape Fear River following the wastewater treatment plant
discharge. Since the specific conductivity levels of the effluent from the Guilford Mills
wastewater treatment plant are much higher than the ambient conductivity concentration, it
serves as an excellent conservative tracer for this purpose. Another purpose of the mass
transport modeling is to verify the time -of -travel results from the dye study in the field.
The specific conductivity model was configured for both water quality surveys: May 2002
and September 2006. Results of the analysis are presented in Figure 2, showing model
calculated and measured conductivity concentrations along the Cape Fear River in the study
area. Note the sharp increase of conductivity levels following the discharge of the treatment
plant effluent in the September 2005 survey due to the extremely low river flow. In general,
the mass transport model results match the spatial trend of the specific conductivity levels
quite well, substantiating the mass transport of and flow balance in the model.
5

500 s
Z3 Flow above Guilford Mills = 24.9 cfs (May 28-30, 2002)
,)400 —
r
3300 —
v
200 - EP
47,
i 100
c
o
0 0
—1 0 1 2 3 4 5
00 i s s
o Flow above Guilford Mills = 4.01 cfs (Sept 6-8, 2005)
>400
3 300/ §
:12200 - to
- x F.
Foo0
c•-- .2'
U0 ' a
—1
Q
Sarecto Br
0 1 2 3 4 5
River Miles below Guilford Mills
Legend: § Data (Average and Range)
Model Results
Figure 2. Conductivity Model Results vs. Data — Checking Mass Transport and Time -of -Travel
Figure 3 shows the plot of time -of -travel for both flow conditions. The lower flow in
September 2005 contributes to a much higher time -of -travel. The measured travel times to
reach Station 6 (at 3.827 miles below the wastewater treatment plant) are matched by the
calculated values closely, i.e., approximately at 15 hours and 43 hours for the May 2002 and
September 2005 flows, respectively.
6

60
55-
a 50-
L
y 45 -
cn , -
ri 40- '
,
-v '
c 35 - •
15 lend; �,'
0 30- _ _ _ _ Sept 2005 .'
c 25 _ May 2002 .'
L .
..- .
.
E 20_ '
._ ..
' To - 15'
> '
o '
L 10- .'.
1—
.
5- '
.
.
i
0 '
—1 0 1 2 3 4 5
River Miles below Guilford Mills
Figure 3. Calculated Time -of -Travel for May 2002 and September 2005 Conditions
Analysis of BOD Data
To accurately characterize the deoxygenation rate in the Cape Fear River following the
discharge of the Guilford Mills wastewater treatment plant, long-term BOD analyses of
samples from the plant effluent and at locations upstream and immediately downstream of
the discharge was conducted in early 2006. Figure 4 shows the results of the BOD analysis of
the plant effluent over a period of 104 days from January 31, 2006 to May 15, 2006. The plots
in Figure 4 show a significant level of,at 24.52 mg/Lin the effluenj. due to addition of
ammonia at the plant. A corresponding production of nitrite/nitrate is shown in Figure 4.
Results also show that nitrification in the effluent is complete by the end of approximately 30
days due to the exhaustion of ammonia. Then the breakdown of dissolved carbon in the
effluent took place in the remaining period of the incubation. While Figure 4 suggests
nitrification in the effluent, plots of the long-term BOD analysis of the receiving water
samples show very insignificant nitrification the Cape Fear River as shown in the long-term
BOD results of the receiving water samples (Figure 5).
It should be noted that ammonia is added as a nutrient supplement to enhance performance
of the biological system. Thus, the addition ofnitrogen_cani control to eliminate or
minimize nitrification in the effluent.
7

50
45-
40-
35-
130
E 25-
0 20'
m
15-
10-
5'
Nitrite/Nitrate (mg/L)
0
1 $ 1 1 1 1 $ 1 $ 1
Measured Total BOD
Calculated NBOD
e -a- o
Total NBOD = 24.52 mg/L
•
•
.
SD
.
20
18-
16-
14-
12
10-
8-
6- Ammonium Oxidized = 5.33 mg/L
4- Nitrite/Nitrate Produced = 5.10 mg/L
2-
0 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Incubation Time (Day)
0
Figure 4. Long -Term Plots of BOD and Nitrite/Nitrate Data of the Effluent Sample
.
•
•
,
As shown in Figure 5, the BOD levels in the downstream samples are slightly higher than
those from the upstream sample. Lab results also show extremely low levels (almost zero) of
ammonia in the ambient river samples. The long-term BOD data from the sample collected
immediately below the treatment plant discharge are re -plotted in Figure 6.
8

12
10
8
cn
- 6
m 4
U
2
►
►
Upstream of Treatment Plant
0-- - 1 + ► 1 1• is
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
12
Incubation Time (Day)
10•
Downsteam of Treatment Plant
•
•
•
0► • 1 ► 0 0 ► ► ► ►
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
►
Incubation Time (Day)
Figure 5. Data Plots of Long -Term BOD Analysis of the Receiving Water Samples
A simple regression analysis of the BOD data yielded a BOD bottle rate, ki of 0.035 day-1
(Figure 6), characterizing a slow bio-oxidation process in the receiving water and reflecting
that the treatment plant effluent is highly stabilized in terms of .carbon. Such a low carbon
deoxygenation rate in the Cape Fear River is associated with a high CBOD„/ CBODS ratio of
6.23. [This ratio is needed to convert the model results in CBODu to CBOD5.]
9

12
10-
cn
E
0
m 4-
U
8-
6-
2-
Downsteam of Treatment Plant
ki = 0.035 day'
•
11
04'. I .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Incubation Time (Day)
Figure 6. Regression Analysis of the BOD Data for Sample at Immediately Below the Discharge
BOD/DO Model Results
The calibrated mass transport model was then used to simulate the BOD and DO
concentrations in the river under both flow conditions. Based on the BOD data analysis, a
deoxygenation rate of 0.035 day-1 was used in the modeling analysis. While the long-term
BOD data of the ambient river samples show insignificant nitrification, a small nitrification
rate of 0.0-1(as a conservative assumption) was adopted in the modeling analysis.
Figure 7 shows the model calculated vs. measured CBOD5, NBOD, and DO concentrations
under the May 2002 flow condition. Similar results for CBOD5, NBOD, and DO
concentration profiles for the September 2005 flow condition are presented in Figure 8. The
model is capable of closely reproducing the dissolved oxygen data in both surveys, thereby
calibrating and verifying the key model coefficients such as the in -stream carbon
deoxygenation and nitrification rates. Note that the depression of dissolved oxygen levels
in a classic DO sag curve is missing in both data sets - a typical dissolved oxygen profile
observed in many low flow streams these days (Lung, 2001).
10

River Flow above WWTP = 24.9 cfs & Temp = 24.5°C
10 1 1
01 8- o
6
m 4_
0
3
• 2
• 1
41.
0 1 1 1
— 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10
9-
8-
- 7-
� 6-
5
0 4-
m 3-
z 2-
1-
0
0 1 1 1
— 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Ci 12 t 1• • •
\ 11-
E 1g _ Saturation DO = 8.42 mg/L
c - -
vflE
---ii i i
v 4- m• °D
E
0
> 3 - L°
O 2-
.� 1- ' a. c -
� 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Capefear River Miles
Legend: iData (Average and Range: May 28-30, 2002)
Model Results
Figure 7. Model Calculated CBOD., NBOD, and DO concentrations vs. Measured for May 2002

River Flow above WWTP = 4.0 cfs & Temp = 24.5°C
10 s s
9-
• 8-
E 7-
0
0 5- -
O 4- -
o. 3-
▪ 2•
in 1-
0 s ,
—1 0 1 2 3 4 5
10
9-
8-
7-
c" 5-
0 4-
m 3-
z 2-
1-
d,
E
o
a
Sorecta Br o
•
•
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5
'21 12
11-
19 _ Saturation DO = 8.42 mg/L
c- -
o, 7-
> 6-
x
0 5-
-v 4-
c 2-
0 0
•
-
•
—1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Capefear River Miles below Guilford Mills
Legend: § Data (Average and Range: Sept 6-8, 2005)
Model Results
Figure 8. Model Calculated CBOD5, NBOD, and DO concentrations vs. Measured for September 2005
12

Model Projection Analysis
Following the model calibration and verification analysis, a number of CBOD loading
scenarios were developed to evaluate their impacts on dissolved oxygen in the Cape Fear
River immediately below the treatment plant discharge (Table 1). In addition, the model
configuration is extended for additional 5 miles in the downstream direction. The summer
7Q10 low flow in the study area is about 6.5 cfs.
Table 1. Model Projection Scenarios
Scenario
River Flow (cfs)
Plant Flow (MGD)
Nitrification
CBOD5
1
6.5
1.0
No
Max to meet DO of 5 mg/L
2
6.5
1.0
Yes
Max to meet DO of 5 mg/L
3
6.5
1.5
No
Max to meet DO of 5 mg/L
4
6.5
1.5
Yes
Max to meet DO of 5 mg/L
5
Required -1
1.0
No
30 mg/L
6
Required -
1.0
Yes
30 mg/L
7
Required -
1.5
No
30 mg/L
8
Required
1.5
Yes
30 mg/L
Summer 7-day 10-year low flow = 6.5 cfs
Ambient river temperature = 28 °C
The plant current flow = 1.0 MGD
The plant design flow =1.5 MGD
Dissolved oxygen concentration in plant effluent = 6.0 mg/L
Ammonia concentration in plant effluent = 1.0 mg/L
CBOD deoxygenation rate in the stream = 0.035 day-1 (as calibrated)
Nitrification rate in the river (if incorporated) = 0.05 day-1 (as calibrated)
Model results for the first 4 scenarios are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Model Projection Results - imam Effluent CBOD5 Concentration
Scenario
River Flow (cfs)
Plant Flow (MGD)
Nitrification
Max. CBOD5 (mg/L)
1
6.5
1.0
No
34.8
2
6.5
1.0
Yes
27.6
3
6.5
1.5
No
27.2
4
6.5
1.5
, Yes)
, 24.0 ' ,\
-1At-)%v
Table 3. Model Projection Results - Minimum River Flow
Scenario
River Flow (cfs)
Plant Flow (MGD)
Nitrification
CBOD5 (mg/L)
Min. Flow (cfs)
5
6.5
1.0
No
30 /
,1,_0
6
6.5
1.5
Yes
30 't
6.7
7
6.5
1.0
No
30 ,
6.8
8
6.5
1.5
Yes
30 '
7.5
A range of CBOD5 levels from 24.0 mg/L to 34.8 mg/L in the treatment plant effluent is
expected to meet the DO standard of 5 mg/L under a low flow rate of 6.5 cfs in the Cape
13

Fear River upstream of the treatment plant discharge. Table 3 suggests that stream flow
rates above a range from 6.0 cfs to 7.5 cfs would be required to maintain a DO standard of 5
mg/L, depending on the plant flow rate and the nitrification rate in the river.
Current permit limits are based on the following flow conditions:
Summer Low Flow (7Q10): 6.5 cfs
Winter Low Flow: 18 cfs
Average Flow: 398 cfs
Based on these conditions and the model results, CBOD5 as high as 24 mg/L can be
assimilated while maintaining 5 mg/L or upstream DO conditions. During winter low
temperature, low flow conditions, the assimilative capacity would be significantly increased
to allow CBOD5 level in the plant effluent well above 200 mg/L. At a CBOD5 concentration
of 30 mg/L and the average river- flow of 398 cfs; the -dissolved -oxygen level in the area
downstream of the plant discharge would be significantly above the 5 mg/L level.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It can be concluded that the stream DO standard of 5 mg/L is not expected to be
compromised at BOD5 concentration limits significantly higher than the current permit limit
of 10 mg/L. DO conditions downstream of the discharge point generally remained at or
above the upstream DO concentration. As stated previously, compliance with of this limit
incurs significant costs and adversely affects the competitiveness of Guilford Mills. Thus, an
increase in the effluent BOD5 limit should be requested.
Under average flow and winter low flow conditions, a CBOD5 limit of 30 mg/L, with or
without nitrification, is not expected to impact stream DO standards. Under summer low
flow conditions and a maximum effluent flow of 1.5 mgd, an effluent CBOD5 limit of 24
mg/L is predicted to maintain stream DO standards or upstream standards with nitrification
included in the model.
Based on the results of the modelpresented in this report, it is recommended that Guilford
Mills request seasonal CBOD5 discharge limits of 24 mg/L and 30 mg/L for summer and
winter flow conditions, respectively. These limits are predicted to maintain a stream DO
standard of 5.0 mg/ L and will allow significant operational cost savings for the Guilford
Mills WWTP.
References
Grant, R.S, 1976. Reaeration Coefficient Measurements of Ten Small Streams in Wisconsin
Using Radioactive Tracers. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations, pp.76-
79.
Lung, W.S. 2001. Water Quality Modeling for Wasteload Allocations and TMDLs, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 333p.
Lung, W.S. and Sobeck, R.G., 1999. Renewed Use of BOD/DO Models in Water Quality
Management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 125(4):222-227.
14

r
JD
Tsivoglou, E.C. and Neal, L.A., 1976. Tracer Measurements of Reaeration: III. Predicting the
Reaeration Capacity of Inland Streams. Journal of Water Pollution Control and Federation,
48(12): 2669-2689.
APPENDIX - The STREAM Model Formulation
- (from Lung, 2001)
Under steady-state conditions, a 1-D BOD/DO STREAM model includes the following
equations (Lung, 2001):
-.1-
D = K„L° (e-K,11 — e-KaU) CBOD (la)
Ka — Kr
x x
+ K" N° (e —Kn U — e —Ka U) NBOD (1b)
Ka — K„
x
+ Doe -lc a Initial DO Deficit (lc)
x
— P (1— e_Ka U) Algal Photosynthesis (1d)
Ka
_Kax
+ R (1— e U) Algal Respiration (le)
Ka
Y
+ SOD (1— e—Ka 11) Sediment Oxygen Demand (1f)
HKa

where
D = Dissolved oxygen deficit (mg/L)
KD = In -stream CBOD deoxygenation rate (day-1)
Lo = Initial stream CBOD concentration below the wastewater outfall (mg/L)
K. = In -stream reaeration coefficient (day-1)
Kr = In -stream CBOD removal rate (day-1)
x = Stream distance downstream from the point source (mile)
11= Average stream velocity (mile/day)
K. = In -stream nitrification rate (day-1)
No = Initial stream NBOD concentration below the wastewater outfall (mg/L)
Do = Initial stream DO deficit concentration below the wastewater outfall (mg/L)
P = Algal photosynthesis rate (mg 02 L-1 day-1)
R = Algal respiration rate (mg 02 L-1 day-1)
SOD = Sediment oxygen demand (gm 02 m-2 day-1)
H = Average depth of the water column (ft)
The initial stream CBOD concentration, Lo, in Eq. la must be expressed as ultimate oxygen
demand. Because of zero -order and first -order kinetics formulated in the model, the
dissolved oxygen deficit terms due to different sources and sinks are added, i.e.,
superimposed. The dissolved oxygen concentration C may be determined from the
computed deficit using the following equation:
C=CS -D
where CS is the saturated dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L). The following equation is
recommended by EPA (1995 to calculate the saturated dissolved oxygen concentrations as a
function of temperature for freshwater streams:
CS=
468
31.6+T
where T is water temperature in °C. This equation is accurate to within 0.03 mg/L
compared with the Benson -Krause equation on which, the Standard Methods tables are
based (Lung, 2001).
(2)
16

Water Quality Modeling of the
Cape Fear River at Guilford Mills, NC
Report Date: 2/ 16/ 07
Table of Contents
Appendix A: Field and Laboratory Results and Methods 4
1.1 Background 4
1.2 Site Description 4
1.3 Sampling Site Locations 4
1.4 Station Geometry 5
1.5 Velocity Measurements 7
1.5.1 Equipment 7
1.5.2 Procedures 7
1.5.3 Results 7
1.5.3.1 May, 2002 Survey 7
1.5.3.2 September, 2005 Survey 8
1.6 Time of Travel 9
1.6.1 Procedure 9
1.6.2 Equipment and Supplies 9
1.6.3 Results 9
1.6.3.1 May 2002 Survey 9
1.6.3.2 September 2005 Survey 10
1.7 Model Calibration for Flow 12
1.8 Field Testing and Sampling 14
1.8.1 General Description 14
1.8.2 Field Testing Equipment and Procedures 15
1.8.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature 15
1.8.2.2 Conductivity 15
1.8.2.3 pH 15
1.8.3 Laboratory Testing and Field Sampling 16
1.8.3.1 General Description 16
1.8.3.2 Nitrogen Testing 16
1.8.3.3 Total Suspended Solids 16
1.8.3.4 Biochemical Oxygen Demand 16
1.8.4 Results 17
1.8.4.1 Field Data, 2002 Survey 17
1.8.4.2 Field Data, 2005 Survey 17
1.8.4.3 Laboratory Results, May, 2002 18
1.8.4.4 Laboratory Results September, 2005 19
1.8.4.5 Ultimate BOD, Upstream 20
1.8.4.6 Ultimate BOD, Downstream 22
1.8.4.7 Ultimate BOD, WWTP Effluent 24
Appendix B: Stream Cross Sections 27
Appendix C: Cross Section and Velocity Data for May, 2002 45
Appendix D: Cross Section and Velocity Data for September 7, 2005 48

Appendix E: Long Term BOD Protocol 51

Water Quality Modeling of the
Cape Fear River at Guilford Mills, NC
Report Date: 2/16/07
Appendix A: Field and Laboratory Results and Methods
1.1 Background
The Guilford NPDES permit stipulates water quality limiting permit conditions for
CBOD. These limits were established based on desktop models of the receiving stream.
These models were established using best professional judgment; however, they were not
based on extensive field data. Thus, in an effort to verify the need for the additional cost
of compliance using tertiary treatment, a water quality model was developed to simulate
carbonaceous biochemical demand (CBOD), nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand
(NBOD), and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the Cape Fear River following
the discharge of the Guilford Mills wastewater treatment plant. Data collected from two
water quality surveys conducted in May 2002 and September 2005 were used to support
the modeling analysis. The field program also included time -of -travel studies for the
modeling area and sample collections for water quality parameter analyses.
These Appendices provides background information and data to support the water quality
model results reported.
1.2 Site Description
1.3 Sampling Site Locations
The Guilford Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in Kenansville, North Carolina and
discharges to the Cape Fear River. The vicinity of the discharged is characterized as a
swamp area with relatively low slope and river depths during low flow periods. Due to
the shallow depths and flat area of the drainage area, the width of the river varies greatly
with flow and extensive flooding of the area occurs during high flow periods.
The area of this study focuses on an area from the discharge point to the Sacreta Bridge,
2.6 river miles downstream. Initially, six (6) stations were investigated for sampling and
flow measurement. A description of the stations is provided below.
Sampling Station 1— Located 50 feet upstream of WWTP above the zone of influence of effluent
on river water quality.
Sampling Station 2 — Located approximately 500 feet downstream of the outfall to ensure mix of
effluent with the river water.

Sampling Station 3 — Located approximately 0.9 miles downstream of the discharge. This site is
located near a "Pig Farm" with manure storage lagoons near the river.
Sampling Station 4 — Located approximately 2.1 miles downstream of the discharge and upstream
of the confluence of an unnamed tributary. This site was initially considered but later eliminated
due to accessibility problems and minimal relevance to the study. During low flow conditions,
minimum flow was observed from the tributary.
Sampling Station 5 — Located approximately 2.2 miles downstream of the discharge and
sufficiently downstream of confluence of the unnamed tributary to allow mixing.
Sampling Station 6 — Located at the Sacreta Bridge, approximately 2.7 miles downstream of the
discharge.
As indicated above, station four (4) was eliminated due to access limitations and
relevance to the study. Thus, data was collected for five stations, 1,2,3,5 and 6. A
handheld Global Positioning System (GPS) device was used to approximate the
geological coordinates of the stations. Location information for these stations is shown in
Table A-1. A diagram of the locations using portions of the Albertson and Beulaville
USGS Sectionals (24K Quadrangle) is shown in Figure A-1.
Location
Table A-1: Sampling Station Location Information
Latitude
Longitude
Straight Distance
from WWTP
Outfall (miles)
Outfall
Station 3
Confluence of creeks
Sarecta Bridge (Rt. 24)
1.4 Station Geometry
N35°01'0"
N35°00' 11"
N 34° 59' 13"
N 34° 58' 47"
W 77° 50' 47"
W 77° 51' 00"
W 77° 51' 33"
W77°51'45"
0.00
0.93
2.17
2.66
To evaluate flow at each station, the cross sectional area and average velocity was
measured. The cross sectional area was determined by measuring the water depth at
intervals across the channel from waterline to water line (edge of the water on each side
of the channel). In all cases, the zero width measurement was taken on the left side of the
channel when facing upstream (northward).

Figure A-1: Site Locations
Guilford Mills
NE Cape Fear TMDL Study
Station Map
Station dX Descriptor
1 -50 Above outflow
2 200 Complete Mix
3 8200 Pig Farm
4 — --
5 15200 River Section
6 20200 Sarecta Bridge
NOTE: Reference is discharge point (X = 0)
Station 4 not used.
Measurements in Feet
S1/S2 (marked at outflow)
S3 (Pig Farm)
S6 (Under Sarecta Bridge)
Grid Lines are 1000 by 1000 meters.

Two sampling surveys were performed. The timing of the events was based on flow
conditions in the Cape Fear River. Since the NPDES assimilative capacity of the
receiving stream is assessed for low flow conditions (7Q10), such conditions were
desirable during sampling events to assess the impact of the discharge with respect to
dissolved oxygen. The first sampling event was during May, 2002. As fate would have it,
low flow conditions did not reoccur at a time that sampling could be performed until
September 2005.
The cross sectional areas determined for the stations during each survey are shown in
Appendix B.
1.5 Velocity Measurements
1.5.1 Equipment
A propeller type velocity probe was used to measure instream velocity. Specifications for
the unit used are provided below:
Manufacturer Global Water
Model FP101
Range 0.3 —15 fps
Accuracy 0.1 fps
1.5.2 Procedures
The velocity meter was operated in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
The velocity was determined in subsections of the stream cross sections using the average
velocity function of the meter. The meter was moved back and forth from top to bottom
in the cross section for a period of 20 to 40 seconds. Velocity measurements were taken
every second and averaged by the unit computer.
1.5.3 Results
1.5.3.1 May, 2002 Survey
Cross sections and velocity measurements were determined on May 28, 2002 to estimate
stream flow at each station. The results are shown in Appendix C and are summarized in
Table A-2.

Table A-2: Summary of Estimated
Stream Flows at Sample Stations
(May 28, 2002)
Average
Velocity Flow
Station Area (ft2) (fps) Flow (cfs) (mgd)
WWTP 1.3 0.81
1 53.8 0.5 29.1 18.81
2 52.4 0.6 30.8 19.92
3 62.4 0.4 25.9 16.71
5 91.0 0.3 30.7 19.87
6 63.5 0.6 39.2 25.31
1.5.3.2 September, 2005 Survey
Cross sections and velocity measurements were determined on September 7, 2005 to
estimate stream flow at each station. The results are shown in Appendix D and are
summarized in Table A2.
Table A-3: Summary of Estimated
Stream Flows at Sample Stations
(September 7, 2005)
Average
Velocity Flow
. Station Area (ft2) (fps) Flow (cfs) (mgd)
WWTP 1.6 1.05
1 34.1 <0.3 ND ND
2 20.1 <0.42 <8.4 <5.5
3 46.0 <0.3 ND ND
5 48.5 <0.23 <11.3 <7.3
6 15.4 <0.46 <7.0 <4.5
During the September survey, stream velocity were very low and were generally below
the velocity meter range of 0.3 fps. Thus, flow rates could not be accurately determined.
Very low flows were observed and the flows were stable throughout the testing period.

1.6 Time of Travel
1.6.1 Procedure
The time of travel from the WWTP to Station 6 was determined using fluorescent dye.
Rhodamine dye was released at the discharge point and discrete hourly samples were
collected at Station 6 using a composite sampler. Samples were taken every 15 minutes
and four samples were combined in each sample bottle. Thus, each sample bottle
represented a composite of samples taken over an hour period. The concentration of dye
was determined for each hour composited sample and the time after the release for the
peak concentration to occur was determined. The occurrence of the peak concentration
was assumed to represent the time of travel through the watershed and the average
velocity was thus determined using the estimated distance from the WWTP discharge
point to Station 6. This distance was estimated using USGS quadrangle charts (7.5
minute, 1:24000 scale) for the study area.
1.6.2 Equipment and Supplies
The following equipment and chemicals were used for determination of time of travel.
Dye: Rhodamine WT
Flourometer: Sequoia -Turner Digital Fluorometer Model 450
Sampler: ISCO Portable Sampler with 24 Bottle Configuration
1.6.3 Results
1.6.3.1 May 2002 Survey
A volume of 0.2 L of Rhodamine WT dye was released at the WWTP discharge point on
May 29, 2002, 4:30 pm. The concentration of dye was determined in hourly composite
samples taken at Station 6. The results are provided in Table A-4 and shown in Figure A-
2. The time of travel from the WWTP to Station 6 was estimated to be around 15.3 hours
with an average velocity of 0.4 fps.

Concentration (ppb)
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Table A-4: Dye Concentration in River at Times Following Release
May 29, 2002
Time At (hours) C
5/29/2002 23:30 7 0.0
5/30/2002 0:30 8 0.1
5/30/20021:30 9 0.1
5/30/2002 2:30 10 0.0
5/30/2002 3:30 11 0.0
5/30/2002 4:30 12 0.0
5/30/2002 5:30 13 0.2
5/30/2002 6:30 14 4.7
5/30/2002 7:30 15 10.3
5/30/2002 8:30 16 8.9
5/30/2002 9:30 17 4.9
5/30/2002 10:25 18 2.5
Figure A-2. Dye Concentration at Sarecta Bridge after Time of Release
•
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Time after Release (hrs)
1.6.3.2 September 2005 Survey
A volume of 0.375 L of Rhodamine WT dye, diluted to 20% by volume was released at
the WWTP discharge point on September 7, 2005, 10:10 am. The concentration of dye
was determined in hourly composite samples taken at Station 6. The results are provided

in Table A-5 and shown in Figure A-3. The time of travel from the WWTP to Station 6
was estimated to be around 45.6 hours with an average velocity of 0.1 fps.
Table A-5: Dye Concentration in River at Times Following Release
September 7, 2005
Delta Time
Time (hours) ppb
9/7/2005 10:10 0
9/8/2005 16:46 30.60 4
9/8/200517:46 31.60 .4
9/8/2005 18:46 32.60 4
9/8/2005 19:46 33.60 4
9/8/2005 20:46 34.60 4
9/8/2005 21:46 35.60 4
9/8/2005 23:46 36.60 4
9/9/2005 0:46 37.60 5
9/9/2005 1:46 38.60 7
9/9/2005 2:46 39.60 15
9/9/2005 3:46 40.60 33
9/9/2005 4:46 41.60 60
9/9/2005 5:46 42.60 107
9/9/2005 6:46 43.60 163
9/9/2005 7:46 44.60 208
9/9/2005 8:46 45.60 219
9/9/2005 9:46 46.60 209
9/9/2005 10:46 47.60 181
9/9/2005 11:46 48.60 149
9/9/2005 12:46 49.60 122
9/9/2005 13:46 50.60 97
9/9/200514:46 51.60 74
9/9/2005 15:46 52.60 55

250
200
.a
o.
a.
150
0
co
L
46
C
100
c
0
V
50
0
Figure A-3: Dye Concentration at Sarceta Bridge
after Time of Release
(September, 2002)
1.111111
25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Time After Release (hrs)
1.7 Model Calibration for Flow
50.00 55.00
The following data were utilized to determine the flow rates in the May 2002 and
September 2005 water quality surveys to support the BOD/DO modeling analysis:
1. Time -of -travel dye study results
2. Hydraulic geometry measurements including average velocity, width, and cross -
sectional area (Velocities in 2002 were estimated using the Manning's Equation.)
3. The wastewater treatment effluent flow and water quality data
4. The measured electric conductivity data measured in the Capefear River
Using the above data, the technical approach adopted to determine the flow rates was to
construct a mass transport model to simulate electric conductivity (a conservative water
quality constituent) levels in the Capefear River and compare the calculated electric
conductivity levels with measured data (see the figure below). A model sensitivity
analysis was performed to vary the flow rates until the calculated conductivity levels
match the measured values in a reasonable fashion.

^500
4O0
m300-
200-
100-
c.) 0
-1
Flow above Guilford Mills = 24.9 cfs (May 28-30, 2002)
-455
0 1 2 3 4 5
E"500
0 Flow above Guilford Mills = 4.01 cfs (Sept 6-8, 2005)
1
,,400 -
m300-
200-
.01000 La-
o ' a
U 0 t?
-1 .0 1 2 3 4 5
River Miles below Guilford Mills
Legend: § Data (Average and Range)
Model Results
4
CO
0
0
m
L
in
The key factor that tightens this model sensitivity analysis is the time -of -travel. The
following figure shows the calculated time -of -travel for both flow conditions. The lower
flow in September 2005 contributes to a much higher time -of -travel. The measured
travel times to reach Station 6 (at 3.827 miles below the wastewater treatment plant) are
matched by the calculated values closely, i.e., approximately at 15 hours and 43 hours for
the May 2002 and September 2005 flows, respectively.

60
55-
a 50-
45-
a' 40-
c • 35-
Legend: .'
• 30 • Sept 2005
c 25- Moy 2002
1
E 20-
i= '
15- '
'
t-
10-
5- '
—• 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
River Miles below Guilford Milts
The mass transport modeling analysis and its results therefore confirm the following:
1. The flow balance in the Capefear River in the study area.
2. The mass balance for a conservative constituent in the Capefear River.
3. Time -of -travels in both water quality surveys.
1.8 Field Testing and Sampling
1.8.1 General Description
Field measurements and sampling were obtained at the stations and the WWTP effluent.
Two morning and two afternoon events were performed for each survey. Field
measurements were performed for the following parameters:
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Temperature
Conductivity
pH
Samples were also collected for laboratory analysis of the following parameters:
5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Ultimate Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODu)

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia (NH3-N)
Nitrite — Nitrate Nitrogen (NO2-N + NO3-N)
Grab samples were collected from the field stations and 24 hour composite samples were
taken of the WWTP effluent.
1.8.2 Field Testing Equipment and Procedures
1.8.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature
Dissolved oxygen and temperature measurements were performed in the field using a
YSI Model 54A Meter and a Model 5905 Probe. Testing was performed in accordance
with manufacturer's instructions and the current edition of Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (Standard Methods) — Method 4500-0 G. The
meter was air calibrated at each station prior to DO measurement. Zero calibration was
performed using a sample of stream water with excess sodium sulfite added.
Readings were performed below the surface of the water, generally mid -depth. The probe
was gently moved continuously in the stream to maintain flow across the membrane.
1.8.2.2 Conductivity
Conductivity measurements were performed in the field using a YSI Model 33 SCT
Meter in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and Standard Methods — Method
2510-B. Readings were performed below the surface of the water, generally mid -depth.
The probe was gently moved continuously in the stream to maintain flow across the
sensor.
1.8.2.3 pH
The pH was determined in the field using an Oakton pH 10 Series Meter in accordance
with manufacturer's instructions and Standard Methods — Method 4500-H+ B. The pH
meter was calibrated before the moming sampling event and before the afternoon
sampling events using pH 4 and pH 7 buffer solutions. During the samplingevents, the
pH meter calibration was verified with pH 7 buffer at each station.

1.8.3 Laboratory Testing and Field Sampling
1.8.3.1 General Description
Grab samples were collected from the center of the stream below the surface of the water
in a clean container. Samples were placed in individual container with appropriate
preservatives and stored in ice until received at the analytical laboratory.
1.8.3.2 Nitrogen Testing
Nitrogen testing was performed by Oxford Laboratory in Wilmington, North Carolina for
the May, 2002 survey and by TriTest in Raleigh, North Carolina for the September, 2005
survey. Test methods used for each test are shown in Table A-6.
Table A-6: Nitrogen Test Methods
Test Oxford Labs TriTest Labs
Test Method Test Method
Ammonia SM 4500D EPA 350.1
Nitrate -Nitrite SM 4500F EPA 353.2
Total Kjeldahl EPA 351.2 EPA 351.2
1.8.3.3 Total Suspended Solids
Stream samples and WWTP effluent samples were tested for total suspended solids using
SM 2540D. Testing was performed at the Guilford WWTP laboratory which is certified
by DEQ for self monitoring and reporting of TSS.
1.8.3.4 Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Stream samples and WWTP effluent samples were tested for five day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) using SM 5210B. Testing was performed at the Guilford WWTP
laboratory which is certified by DEQ for self monitoring and reporting of BOD5.
Long term BOD testing was performed by ERA Laboratories of Auburn, Alabama using
the "Protocol/Procedure for the Amplified Long -Term BOD Test" adapted by Georgia
Environmental Protection Division. As required by this procedure, nitrogen testing was
also performed by ERA to allow calculation of the nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD).
The procedure used is provided in Appendix E. Analyses were performed on samples

taken from the WWTP effluent, upstream, and downstream after complete mixing with
the WWTP effluent. Samples were collected for this testing on January 31, 2006.
1.8.4 Results
1.8.4.1 Field Data, 2002 Survey
A summary of the field test results is shown in Table A-7.
Table A-7: Summary of Field Test Results
(May, 2002 Survey)
Station Time Temp pH DO Cond
1 5/28/2002 16:30 26.2 6.4 6.2 200
1 5/29/2002 10:50 24.5 6.01 5.32 195
1 5/29/2002 16:00 24.5 5.6 6 200
1 5/30/2002 9:06 22.8 6.04 5.34 200
2 5/28/2002 17:00 27.3 6.2 6.5 210
2 5/29/2002 10:35 24.5 6.08 5.4 205
2 5/29/2002 16:25 24.5 5.6 6.22 205
2 5/30/2002 8:53 22.8 6.24 5.25 200
3 5/28/2002 14:23 23.8 6.4 6.83 210
3 5/29/2002 9:30 25.3 6.28 5.36 205
3 5/29/2002 17:30 23.5 6.18 6.6 215
3 5/30/2002 10:02 23.8 6.42 5.43 220
5 5/28/2002 14:23 23.8 6.4 6.83 210
5 5/29/2002 9:30 25.3 6.28 5.36 205
5 5/29/2002 17:30 23.5 6.18 6.6 215
5 5/30/2002 10:02 23.8 6.42 5.43 220
6 5/28/2002 13:54 24.4 6.37 6.42 200
6 5/29/2002 9:05 24 6.23 5.44 205
6 5/29/2002 17:43 24.5 6.38 6.4 210
6 5/30/2002 10:15 23.5 6.36 5.45 225
Effluent 5/27/2002 0:00 25.3 7.0 6.1 469
Effluent 5/28/2002 13:54 24.5 7.1 6.2 488
Effluent 5/31/2002 0:00 24.9 6.8 7.2 497
1.8.4.2 Field Data, 2005 Survey
A summary of the field test results is shown in Table A-8.

Table A-8: Summary of Field Test Results
(September, 2005 Survey)
STATION DATE TIME pH COND. DO Temperature
(mmho) (mg/L) (C)
1 9/6/2005 3:50 PM 6.6 270 4.4 26.6
1 9/7/2005 9:30 AM 6.8 255 4.4 22.3
1 9/7/2005 2:30 PM 6.7 268 4.3 26.0
1 9/8/2005 9:30 AM 6.9 255 4.4 22.9
2 9/6/2005 3:43 PM 6.9 330 4.8 26.3
2 9/7/2005 10:00 AM 7.0 370 5.5 22.8
2 9/7/2005 3:00 PM 7.1 390 5.4 28.4
2 9/8/2005 10:00 AM 7.2 410 5.6 22.2
3 9/6/2005 4:23 PM 6.9 310 6.3 26.7
3 9/7/2005 10:45 AM 7.0 310 4.7 25.2
3 9/7/2005 3:45 PM 7.2 275 5.6 28.7
3 9/8/2005 10:30 AM 7.2 325 5.1 22.5
5 9/6/2005 5:16 PM 7.0 300 6.3 26.5
5 9/7/2005 11:25 AM 7.1 285 4.9 25.4
5 9/7/2005 4:15 PM 7.2 300 6.1 27.0
5 9/8/2005 11:10 AM 7.2 315 5.2 24.6
6 9/6/2005 5:48 PM 6.9 295 5.6 25.6
6 9/7/2005 11:45 AM 6.9 280 4.9 23.9
6 9/7/2005 4:45 PM 7.1 295 5.4 25.8
6 9/8/2005 11:15 PM 7.1 300 5.1 23.9
Effluent 9/7/2005 9:45 AM 7.5 715 6.0 23.0
Effluent 9/8/2005 9:45 AM 7.4 774 6.2 23.0
1.8.4.3 Laboratory Results, May, 2002
Laboratory results for samples collected during the May, 2002 survey are shown in Table
A-9.

Table A-9: Laboratory Results for
May, 2002 Survey
Station Time NH3-N TKN NO3+NO2 Tot-N BOD5 TSS
1 5/28/2002 16:30 0.36 1.2 0.1 1.3 <2 2
1 5/29/200210:50 0.36 0.8 0.1 0.9 <2 2
1 5/29/200216:00 0.3 1.04 0.1 0.941 3 4
1 5/30/2002 9:06 0.2 0.638 0.1 0.538 3 8
2 5/28/200217:00 0.36 1.2 0.2 1.4 2 2
2 5/29/200210:35 0.36 1.2 0.3 1.5 <2 28
2 5/29/2002 16:25 0.4 1.41 0.4 1.01 2 2
2 5/30/2002 8:53 0.2 2.1 0.4 1.6 3 7
3 5/28/200214:23 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.9 3 4
3 5/29/2002 9:30 0.73 1.14 0.4 1.54 9 2
3 5/29/200217:30 0.3 1.64 0.7 0.941 10 8
3 5/30/200210:02 0.2 2.14 1.2 0.941 11 13
5 5/28/200214:23 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.9 <2 2
5 5/29/2002 9:30 0.73 1.14 0.4 1.54 2 4
5 5/29/2002 17:30 0.3 1.64 0.7 0.941 <2 23
5 5/30/200210:02 0.2 2.14 1.2 0.941 3 2
6 5/28/200213:54 0.36 0.7 0.2 0.9 <2 2
6 5/29/2002 9:05 0.55 1.01 0.4 1.41 2 4
6 5/29/2002 17:43 0.3 1.51 0.7 0.806 <2 23
6 5/30/200210:15 0.2 2.14 1.2 0.941 3 2
Effluent 5/29/2002 9:05 4.37 6.1 4.4 10.5 2 21
Effluent 5/29/2002 17:43 2 17
Effluent 5/30/2002 10:15 4 16
1.8.4.4 Laboratory Results September, 2005
Laboratory results for samples collected during the May, 2002 survey are shown in Table
A-10.

Table A-10: Laboratory Results for
September, 2005 Survey
STATION DATE TIME Total Nitrate- Ammonia BOD5 TSS
Nitrogen Nitrite
1 9/6/2005 3:50 PM 1.03 0.06 0.12 <2 5
1 9/7/2005 9:30 AM 1.09 0.07 0.13 <2 3
1 9/7/2005 2:30 PM 0.91 0.07 0.13 4 2
1 9/8/2005 9:30 AM 1.31 0.07 0.07 3 2
2 9/6/2005 3:43 PM 1.21 1.18 0.13 <2 7
2 9/7/2005 10:00 AM 1.69 7.3 0.15 <2 28
2 9/7/2005 3:00 PM 1.77 6.44 0.1 5 18
2 9/8/2005 10:00 AM 2.03 6.52 0.11 7 18
3 9/6/2005 4:23 PM 0.97 0.82 0.06 <2 12
3 9/7/2005 10:45 AM 1.05 1.87 0.07 <2 11
3 9/7/2005 3:45 PM 1.29 3.48 0.06 5 13
3 9/8/2005 10:30 AM 1.39 2.09 0.06 4 12
5 9/6/2005 5:16 PM 1.05 0.65 0.06 <2 4
5 9/7/2005 11:25 AM 0.96 0.66 0.07 <2 3
5 9/7/2005 4:15 PM 1.02 0.73 0.05 5 3
5 9/8/2005 11:10 AM 1.45 5.57 0.06 5 4
6 9/6/2005 5:48 PM 0.95 0.65 0.06 <2 7
6 9/7/2005 11:45 AM 1 0.62 0.06 <2 3
6 9/7/2005 4:45 PM 0.98 0.63 0.06 <2 4
6 9/8/2005 11:15 PM 0.99 1.35 0.07 4 3
Effluent 9/7/2005 9:45 AM
18 <0.1 2 32
Effluent 9/8/2005 9:45 AM 6 36
1.8.4.5 Ultimate BOD, Upstream
Results of ultimate BOD testing are summarized in Table A-11 and shown in Figure A-4.

Table A-11: Summary of Ultimate BOD Data for Upstream Sample
Days Cumulative
Date Read BOD NH3* NO2/NO3 TKN
1 /31 /2006 0 0.88 0.73
2/1/2006 0 0
2/2/2006 1 0.36
2/3/2006 2 0.65
2/4/2006 3 0.8
2/5/2006 4 1.02 0.09 0.96
2/6/2006 5 1.39
2/7/2006 6 1.72
2/8/2006 7 2.03
2/10/2006 9 2.03 - 0 0.94
2/13/2006 12 2.36
2/15/2006 14 2.48 0 0.91
2/17/2006 16 2.69
2/20/2006 19 4.52 0.17 0.95
2/23/2006 22 5.04
2/27/2006 26 5.26
3/1/2006 28 5.26
3/3/2006 30 5.29 0.2 1.05
3/6/2006 33 5.74
3/8/2006 35 6.09
3/10/2006 37 6.13
3/13/2006 40 6.43 0 0.95
3/17/2006 44 6.46
3/24/2006 51 7.24
3/31/2006 58 7.69 0 1.16 1.28

8
7
6
5
rn
4
O
m 3
2
0
Figure A-4: BOD Progression Curve for Upstream Sample
Upstream BOD Progression
I/
f
� f
—$ Upstream BOD Progression
I
0
10 20 30 40
Days
50
60
70
1.8.4.6 Ultimate BOD, Downstream
Results of ultimate BOD testing are summarized in Table A-12 and shown in Figure A-5.

Table A-12: Summary of Ultimate BOD Data for Downstream Sample
Days Cumulative
Date Read BOD NH3* NO2/NO3 TKN
1 /31 /2006 0 1 0.8
2/1/2006 0 0
2/2/2006 1 0.35
2/3/2006 2 0.67
2/4/2006 3 0.75
2/5/2006 4 0.82 0 1.01
2/6/2006 5 1
2/7/2006 6 1.41
2/8/2006 7 1.7
2/10/2006 9 1.7 0 0.94
2/13/2006 12 2.08
2/15/2006 14 2.24 0 1.02
2/17/2006 16 2.56
2/20/2006 19 4.23 0.16 1.01
2/23/2006 22 4.52
2/27/2006 26 4.82
3/1/2006 28 4.82
3/3/2006 30 4.89 0.16 0.96
3/6/2006 33 5.16
3/8/2006 35 5.47
3/11/2006 38 5.6
3/13/2006 40 5.82 0 1.01
3/17/2006 44 5.84
3/24/2006 51 6.68
3/31/2006 58 7.1 0 1.37 1.17

Figure A-5: BOD Progression Curve for Downstream Sample
8
7
6
5
rn
E
4
O • 3
2
1
0
0
Downstream BOD Progression
1r
Downstream BOD Progression
-E--
10 20 30 40
Days
1.8.4.7 Ultimate BOD, WWTP Effluent
50
60
70
Results of ultimate BOD testing are summarized in Table A-13 and shown in Figure A-6.

Table A-13: Summary of Ultimate BOD Data for WWTP Effluent Sample
Days Cumulative
Date Read BOD NH3 NO2/NO3 TKN NOD CBOD
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1 /31 /2006 5.33 12 5.56
2/1/2006 0 0 0.0
2/2/2006 1 0.26
2/3/2006 2 0.47
2/4/2006 3 0.61
2/5/2006 4 0.78 3.97 10.8 6.3
2/6/2006 5 1.11
2/7/2006 6 1.49
2/8/2006 7 2.15
2/10/2006 9 2.15 5.1 10.6 1.1 1.1
2/13/2006 12 4.34
2/15/2006 14 5.77 5.54 11.3 -1.0
2/17/2006 16 7.12
2/20/2006 19 12.53 3.65 12.7 7.7 4.8
2/23/2006 22 18.24
2/27/2006 26 18.77
3/1/2006 28 20.35
3/3/2006 30 23.49 0.14 15.9 23.9
3/6/2006 33 28.47
3/8/2006 35 29.57
3/10/2006 37 29.93
3/13/2006 40 31.39 0 17 24.5 6.9
3/17/2006 44 32.3
3/24/2006 51 34.33
3/31/2006 58 35.47 0.09 16.9 24.1 11.4
4/7/2006 65 36.45
4/14/2006 72 37.52
4/21/2006 79 38.5
4/28/2006 86 39.57
5/1/2006 89 0 17.1 1.39 24.5
5/5/2006 93 41.12
5/15/2006 103 41.6 17.1

Figure A-6: BOD Progression Curve for WWTP Effluent Sample
45
40
35
30
25
rn
E 20
O
m 15
10
5
0
-5
+ Effluent BOD Progression i
— Calculated NOD
f CBOD Progression
•
♦
10 20 30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Days

Appendix B: Stream Cross Sections

0.00 5.00 10.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
s
w
0
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Station 1 Cross Section May, 2002
Distance from Waterline (ft)
15.00 20.00 25.00
30.00 35.00
•

F
0
0.00 5.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Station 2 Cross Section May, 2002
Distance from Waterline (ft)
10.00 15.00
20.00 25.00
30.00 35.00

F
Station 3 Cross Section May, 2002
Distance from Waterline (ft)
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
2.00
2.50
3.00
35.00
40.00
45.00 50.00

fl.
d
Station 5 Cross Section May, 2002
Distance from Waterline (ft)
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
0.00 ..
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
35.00 40.00
45.00 50.00
3.50 -

Station 6 Cross Section May, 2002
Distance from Waterline (ft)
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
F
a
a)
1.50 -
2.00
2.50
40.00
50.00 60 00

0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0
5
10
Station 1 Cross Section September, 2005
15
20
25 30

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Station 2 Cross Section September, 2005
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.5
1
1.5
2.5
3
Station 3 Cross Section September, 2005
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
5
Station 5 Cross Section September, 2005
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0
2
4
6
Station 6 Cross Section September, 2005
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

Appendix C: Cross Section and Velocity Data for May, 2002

Z•
Data collected May 28, 2002
Sample
Location
Distance
from
Water
Edge Depth
Average
Height
Velocity (ftlsec)
CFS
1 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.45 0.79
5.00 0.70 0.90 0.50 2.25
10.00 1.10 1.45 0.50 3.63
15.00 1.80 1.90 0.50 4.75
20.00 2.00 2.50 0.55 8.25
26.00 3.00 2.25 0.60 9.45
33.00 1.50
33.00 0.00
• Total 29.11
2 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.50 3.40
8.00 1.70 1.90 0.65 9.88
16.00 2.10 2.05 0.60 9.84
24.00 2.00 2.00 0.55 7.70
31.00 2.00
31.00 0.00
Total 30.82
3 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.10 0.16
8.00 0.40 0.83 0.45 2.97
16.00 1.25 1.73 0.50 6.90
24.00 1.30 1.85 0.55 8.14
32.00 2.40 2.30 0.30 5.52
40.00 2.20 1.80 0.30 2.16
44.00 1.40
44.00 0.00
Total 25.85

Data Collect May 28, 2002 Continued
Sample
Location
5
Distance
from
Water
Edge Depth
0.00 0.00
0.00 2.00
8.00 2.30
16.00 2.90
24.00 2.80
32.00 2.20
40.00 1.40
46.00 0.00
Average
Height
Velocity (ftlsec)
CFS
2.15 0.20 3.44
2.25 0.30 5.40
2.15 0.45 7.74
2.50 0.45 9.00
1.80 0.30 4.32
0.70 0.20 0.84
Total 30.74
6 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.50 2.70
6.00 1.80 1.65 0.50 4.95
12.00 1.50 1.35 0.35 2.84
18.00 1.20 1.25 0.59 4.43
24.00 1.30 1.03 1.10 6.77
30.00 0.75 1.23 0.50 3.68
36.00 0.95 1.33 0.90 7.16
42.00 1.70 1.85 0.60 6.66
48.00 2.00
48.00 0.00
Total 39.17

Appendix D: Cross Section and Velocity Data for September 7, 2005
Distance
from
Sample Water
Location Edge Depth Velocity
1 0 0 0
2 0.375
4 0.6
6 1.1 0.18
8 1.46
10 1.56
12 1.78 0.22
14 1.66
16 1.88
18 2.2 0.22
20 2.01
22 1.64
24 0.8
26 0 0
2 0 0 0
2 0.8
4 1.05
6 1.4 0.38
8 1
10 1.05
12 0.95 0.52
14 0.95
16 1.02
18 0.9 0.38
20 0.65
22 0.44
24 0.3
26 0.5 0
27.5 0

Distance
from
Sample Water
Location Edge Depth Velocity
3 0 0
2 0.6
4 0.95
6 1.24
8 1.43 0
10 1.78
12 1.8
14 1.73
16 1.74
18 1.83 0.15
20 2
22 2.5
24 2.55
26 2.15 0.21
28 1.95
30 1.55
32 1.2
34 0.7
36 0.24
37 0
5 0 0
2 0.65
4 1.1
6 2
8 2.7
10 2.9 0.37
12 2.64
14 2.4
16 2.35
18 2.04 0.18
20 1.48
22 1.36
24 1.22
26 1.16
28 1.16 0.27
30 1.68
32 1.21
34 0.8
36 0.5
38.4 0

Distance
from
Sample Water
Location Edge Depth Velocity
6 0 0
1 1.68 0.18
2 1.7 0.23
3 1.8
4 1.31 0.44
5 1.6
6 0.94 0.78
7 0.84
8 0.84 0.9
9 0.76
10 0.8 0.8
11 0.76
12 0.76 0.83
13 0.76
14 0.8 0.7
15 0.54
16 0.46